The legal fight over Virginia’s newly approved congressional map took center stage Monday as the Supreme Court of Virginia heard arguments that could determine whether the entire process holds up—or collapses under its own weight.
At issue is not just the map itself, but how it made its way onto the ballot. Voters narrowly approved the constitutional amendment last week, effectively transferring redistricting authority from a nonpartisan commission to the General Assembly. The margin—roughly 51 percent in favor to 48.5 percent opposed—was tighter than many expected, and final counts are still being tabulated. But inside the courtroom, that result quickly became secondary.
This is what I imagine the Dem lawyer arguing at SCOVA right now looks like. pic.twitter.com/LqsiCBwBEw
— Teri Christoph (@TeriChristoph) April 27, 2026
Early in the hearing, attorneys defending the amendment conceded a critical point under questioning: the referendum outcome does not resolve the constitutional concerns now before the court. That admission set the tone for an exchange that repeatedly circled back to procedural missteps.
Several justices pressed hard on whether the General Assembly followed the required sequence for advancing a constitutional amendment. Virginia’s Constitution mandates an “intervening election” between two legislative approvals of such a measure. The complication arises from timing—specifically, the overlap between legislative action and early voting.
Defenders of the amendment attempted to argue that “the election” refers strictly to Election Day in November, excluding the early voting period that precedes it. That distinction is central to their case. If the election is defined as a single day, then lawmakers can claim they acted before it occurred. If, however, early voting is considered part of the election—as it has been treated in practice for years—then the timeline becomes far more problematic. In that scenario, millions of ballots were cast before the amendment process had been properly completed.
🚨 Dems argue Election Day is a single day, and doesn’t include early voting, in order to try to circumvent their unconstitutional maneuvers.
SCOVA HEARING: Sounds like we’re on solid ground. Justices didn’t like that early voting had started prior to the first passage of the…
— Wren Williams (@WrenWilliamsVA) April 27, 2026
The justices appeared skeptical of the narrower definition. Questions about when an election truly begins—and whether early voting can be separated from it—remained a focal point throughout the arguments.
On the opposing side, attorneys highlighted the real-world consequences of that timing. They pointed to voters who cast ballots without any knowledge that a constitutional amendment affecting redistricting was even in motion. One example described a voter who supported her delegate early, only to later learn that the same lawmaker helped push the amendment forward after her vote was already locked in. The argument framed this as more than a technical violation, emphasizing the idea that voters were effectively denied full information before participating in the electoral process.
To help clear up any confusion here's the current redistricting status:
- Certification is still enjoined
- SCOVA expected to rule on today's case in 2-4 weeks
- Another case re: ballot language still yet to be heard— Virginia Project (@ProjectVirginia) April 27, 2026
After roughly an hour, the session concluded without a ruling, leaving the justices to deliberate on whether the process met constitutional standards. The decision now carries significant weight. If the court finds fault in the sequence or definitions used, the voter-approved amendment—and the congressional map tied to it—could be invalidated.